Planview® ProjectPlace

Name: Planview® ProjectPlace
Brand: Planview
Rating: 4.2 (311 reviews)

Leader

Building the digital future of connected work.

Est 1989|Valuation $1.8B|Raised $3.1B

LinkedIn 97K|Website|Web traffic 223K|FTEs 1,300|HQ Austin, Texas, US

MarketsStrategic Portfolio Management (SPM)Productivity & Collaboration Suite

01Competitive Landscape

Narrative competitive analysis

- Compared with Smartsheet: Smartsheet is commonly selected for teams that need a spreadsheet-style interface and flexible templates. ProjectPlace is more explicit about combining board-based execution with timeline views and can align with PMO governance when integrated with Planview’s portfolio solutions. - Compared with Asana and monday.com: these alternatives are often selected for rapid onboarding, a consumer-oriented interface, and broad integration ecosystems. ProjectPlace’s comparative value is more evident when enterprise portfolio governance and alignment to Planview tools are priorities. - Compared with Jira-centric environments: organizations that standardize on Jira for delivery may prefer to extend Atlassian tooling for cross-team visibility unless ProjectPlace adds measurable value for executive reporting or cross-team coordination.

Adoption / market signals

Third-party platforms report engagement and mindshare metrics that are indicative but not equivalent to market share; such figures should be interpreted cautiously and validated against independent market research where possible.

	Planview ProjectPlace	Smartsheet	Asana
Starting Price	Not publicly listed by vendor (sales-led). Marketplace listings indicate published per-user pricing for short-term contracts; marketplace pricing may vary from direct enterprise pricing.	Public pricing pages detail per-user plans with regional variation; entry-level plans are publicly listed for annual billing.	Public pricing pages list per-user pricing for standard paid tiers; enterprise plans are sales-led.
Typical Fit	Teams requiring Kanban-style execution alongside timeline/Gantt views, and organizations that may integrate with Planview portfolio products for governance.	Teams that prefer a spreadsheet-like interface with templates, grids, dashboards, and automation.	Cross-functional teams seeking a task-and-workflow management tool with extensive integrations and a consumer-oriented UX.
Key Strength	Integrated board and timeline views and document collaboration; alignment potential with Planview portfolio products.	Flexible grid/spreadsheet model, templates, and automation capabilities.	User interface and broad third-party integration ecosystem.
Key Weakness	Sales-led pricing transparency; some users report the Gantt/planning experience is less feature-rich than schedule-centric tools; potential administrative overhead at enterprise scale.	Complexity for enterprise governance and potential impacts from pricing/packaging changes.	Pricing and packaging complexity for larger deployments; seat-model cost sensitivity for small teams.

01Competitive Landscape

Narrative competitive analysis

Compared with Smartsheet: Smartsheet is commonly selected for teams that need a spreadsheet-style interface and flexible templates. ProjectPlace is more explicit about combining board-based execution with timeline views and can align with PMO governance when integrated with Planview’s portfolio solutions.
Compared with Asana and monday.com: these alternatives are often selected for rapid onboarding, a consumer-oriented interface, and broad integration ecosystems. ProjectPlace’s comparative value is more evident when enterprise portfolio governance and alignment to Planview tools are priorities.
Compared with Jira-centric environments: organizations that standardize on Jira for delivery may prefer to extend Atlassian tooling for cross-team visibility unless ProjectPlace adds measurable value for executive reporting or cross-team coordination.

Adoption / market signals

	Planview ProjectPlace	Smartsheet	Asana
Starting Price	Not publicly listed by vendor (sales-led). Marketplace listings indicate published per-user pricing for short-term contracts; marketplace pricing may vary from direct enterprise pricing.	Public pricing pages detail per-user plans with regional variation; entry-level plans are publicly listed for annual billing.	Public pricing pages list per-user pricing for standard paid tiers; enterprise plans are sales-led.
Typical Fit	Teams requiring Kanban-style execution alongside timeline/Gantt views, and organizations that may integrate with Planview portfolio products for governance.	Teams that prefer a spreadsheet-like interface with templates, grids, dashboards, and automation.	Cross-functional teams seeking a task-and-workflow management tool with extensive integrations and a consumer-oriented UX.
Key Strength	Integrated board and timeline views and document collaboration; alignment potential with Planview portfolio products.	Flexible grid/spreadsheet model, templates, and automation capabilities.	User interface and broad third-party integration ecosystem.
Key Weakness	Sales-led pricing transparency; some users report the Gantt/planning experience is less feature-rich than schedule-centric tools; potential administrative overhead at enterprise scale.	Complexity for enterprise governance and potential impacts from pricing/packaging changes.	Pricing and packaging complexity for larger deployments; seat-model cost sensitivity for small teams.